Ramaswamy Is the Only GOP Candidate With a Crypto Plan (coindesk.com) 196
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy revealed a crypto plan today that aims to protect core aspects of the industry, including software developers and unhosted digital wallets. CoinDesk reports: Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has a message for most of the employees at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if he's elected to the White House: You're fired. And everybody still left at their desks would need to back off the crypto industry, according to the candidate's new policy strategy for U.S. digital assets. Most cryptocurrencies are commodities that are none of the SEC's business, according to Ramaswamy's crypto plan shared with CoinDesk on Thursday and set for public release at the North American Blockchain Summit in Texas. The pharmaceutical entrepreneur remains among the top four GOP candidates, maintaining 5% support in a dwindling field dominated by former President Donald Trump, according to polling data.
One issue that separates him from other candidates is his enthusiastic support of crypto as a financial innovation. He argues that the sector needs to have several freedoms protected: the right to code as a First Amendment freedom that should shield software developers from criminal or enforcement vulnerability, the right to maintain self-hosted digital wallets outside the reach of regulators and the right to know how each new virtual asset will be treated by the government. "A big part of what we're missing today is clarity from our regulators," Ramaswamy said in an interview with CoinDesk TV. "What we're going to have is rescinding any of those regulations that are allowing the regulatory state to go after perfectly legal behavior, but by claiming that somehow it shouldn't exist because they don't like it. All of that can end on my watch."
One issue that separates him from other candidates is his enthusiastic support of crypto as a financial innovation. He argues that the sector needs to have several freedoms protected: the right to code as a First Amendment freedom that should shield software developers from criminal or enforcement vulnerability, the right to maintain self-hosted digital wallets outside the reach of regulators and the right to know how each new virtual asset will be treated by the government. "A big part of what we're missing today is clarity from our regulators," Ramaswamy said in an interview with CoinDesk TV. "What we're going to have is rescinding any of those regulations that are allowing the regulatory state to go after perfectly legal behavior, but by claiming that somehow it shouldn't exist because they don't like it. All of that can end on my watch."
So slashdot has no actual method for filtering out (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard that before... and that person ended up being President.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I heard that before... and that person ended up being President.
The incumbent isn't term limited this time.
Re:Not (Score:5, Insightful)
The incumbent isn't term limited this time.
Have you seen Joe's polling numbers?
Not just the national numbers (which are bleak), but his popularity in critical swing states: Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia.
If you aren't worried, you should be.
Harris is even more unpopular. If Joe has a stroke and she becomes the nominee, the Democrats are in big trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Skin color and genitalia. Pure and simple.
Re:Not (Score:4, Insightful)
Skin color and genitalia. Pure and simple.
And previous history as DA, though that really only offends the wing that would hold their nose and vote democrat anyway.
Re:Not (Score:4, Informative)
As a Brit I sometimes wonder about this. What's so objectionable about Harris?
It is not so much that she is objectionable but that there is little that qualifies her. The only reason she is VP is because Biden made an off-the-cuff remark that he wanted to nominate a black woman to be VP, but he apparently had no one in mind. He wanted Susan Rice, but she turned him down. By the time it sunk in that no one was qualified, Harris was picked as the least bad option.
She was a senator and California's attorney general, so she has some political experience, but she did nothing remarkable in either job. She never polled above single digits in the Democratic primary. She has no experience dealing with Republicans, making compromises, and getting stuff done. She has no foreign policy experience.
Biden hates her guts, most likely because of the way she played the race card in the first 2020 debate. One of his first acts was to make her "immigration czar" which was a knife to the kidneys. There is no way she can make anyone happy in that job. She was thrown to the wolves with no preparation during the press interviews. Since then, she's kept a low profile.
It was the same with Pence
I would never vote for Pence, but he was an effective governor of Indiana and one of the few people in the Trump administration with more than an ounce of personal integrity.
What does the VP actually do?
By far, the most important job is to be prepared to be president. Harris fails at that.
If Biden has a stroke, the Democrats would be wise to dump Harris and nominate someone like Andy Beshear.
Re: (Score:3)
OP here. If the VP has no role in day to day government, which seems to be the case, why does it matter what qualifications they have*?
Because Biden is 80 years old and there's a good chance he won't make it through his 2nd term.
A VP can become a P, in a heartbeat.
For that matter, why bother having a VP at all?
Because the Constitution requires it and that's not gonna change.
*Bearing in mind that the last US president had no experience of government whatsoever.
Yeah? And how'd that go?
Re:Not (Score:4, Funny)
If you are worried about Biden not making it through his second term, why would you vote for Trump? Aside from the fact that he isn't much younger and appears to be quite unhealthy, there's a good chance he won't be able to stay out of jail for his full term.
Given that neither candidate's odds for serving a full term are looking good, surely the only thing to do is vote based on their expected performance and the expected performance of their VP. I haven't been keeping too close an eye on it, but isn't Mike Pence retiring or something? Who will Trump pick, and how can they possibly be better than a couple of years of Harris?
Re: (Score:3)
Can't speak for anyone else (as I thought Trump was a slimeball all the way back in the '80s and have never supported him politically) but the reason anyone would choose him due to Biden's age is simple:
US is full of ignorant and easily manipulated voters.
Objectively I would give Biden better odds because he seems to live a relatively healthy - if highly stressful - lifestyle. Trump, with his reputation of lifelong hedonism, could be one Big Mac away from a myocardial infarction.
Re: (Score:2)
What does the VP actually do?
Ever since Johnson, mostly act as an assassination-prevention device. Aka "Ok, I could cap that bastard, but then this buffoon takes over."
Re: (Score:2)
The VP is the president of the Senate and casts a vote in the case of a tie. That's particularly important in the current Senate because the chamber is split 50/50 Democratic/Republican.
Re: Not (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with Harris is that she is the diversity hire that brings exactly two things to the table. Female genitalia and a genetic tan. That is all. She has no other experience and no other meaningful qualifications for the job and only exists for the purposes of ticking a couple of DEI checkboxes. Not the most ideal fallback you want to have in the event that Joe breaks a hip trying to catch an ice cream truck or an errant child that crosses his path.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden was Obama's VP. The highest Hillary Clinton got was Secretary of State, putting her fourth in line after Biden, the Speaker of the House, and the Senate President pro Tempore.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeez, a memory fart. Where's the delete button when one needs one.
Re: (Score:2)
#mybad
s/Hillary/Biden/g
Re: Not (Score:3)
The incumbent wasn't term limited last time around either.
Re: (Score:2)
The incumbent isn't term limited this time.
Not by law, but very possibly by nature.
Re: (Score:2)
He was elected by every rich person screaming at the general population to not vote on him.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard that before... and that person ended up being President.
The difference is that smug asshole has charisma.
Trump is a bully who fulfills Conservatives dreams of beating up the nerds.
Ramaswamy is the insufferable arrogant nerd who still manages to be completely wrong about everything.
I've seen seen interviews and I'm shocked by how intensely dislikable he is.
THis time (Score:2, Insightful)
Luckily this disphit's chance of being president is zero.
This election.
If he's appointed secretary of state and learns the system over the next 4 years, he'd be a strong candidate for the 2028 election.
See for comparison: Hillary Clinton.
Also, analyze his stated policies and show a logical reason not to vote for him. Calling a presidential candidate you don't like a "dipshit" makes people dislike Democrats.
Re:THis time (Score:5, Insightful)
Because his states policies are batshit crazy. He does not understand the issues, much like Trump. He just says what he thinks will get a good reaction from a crowd, much like Trump. His purpose in the race to make all the other MAGA candidates look good in comparison.
Stated policy: build a wall on the Canadian border. That's just pandering to idiots, plain and simple. Walls do not work to keep out migrants. At all. Anyone who thinks they do is deluded. The walls put up on southern border already are easily scaled, the "advanced" features are not working. Maybe he's smart and is only proposing this to get the idiot vote, but from all evidence it doesn't seem like he's good at the necessary one dimensional chess.
Re: (Score:3)
Stated policy: build a wall on the Canadian border. That's just pandering to idiots, plain and simple. Walls do not work to keep out migrants. At all. Anyone who thinks they do is deluded.
Of course the wall doesn’t keep out migrants, it’s there to stop Canada from dumping all their cold air on us. /s
Re: (Score:2)
We should just build a wall of fans that blows their air back north!
Re: (Score:2)
Ramaswamy doesn't have any fans, judging from his polling numbers.
Re:THis time (Score:4, Insightful)
If walls don't work then why is Biden building them on the southern border?
Why have countless civilizations built walls throughout all of history?
What is a castle if not a huge wall around a small town? Europe was packed with castles. Many still stand.
Suddenly, because it is politically inconvenient to have them, for the first time in human history, walls don't work.
Okey dokey!
Re: THis time (Score:5, Informative)
The walls funnel migrants to more convenient areas to turn themselves in. Doesn't make them not come, barely slows down anyone determined to get through, does absolutely nothing about drugs. CBP isn't that stupid, they know what they're up against and what works. If they want more wall they get more wall. Politicians trying to do wall better are retarded.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just naturally really stupid?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's naturally stupid. Walls don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Every old wall is a tourist attraction of a country that today encompasses both sides of the said wall. If walls worked that wouldn't be the case.
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering how stupid one person could be ... then I read your signature. There may be no hope for you.
I'll try to educate you anyway. The Berlin Wall was heavily guarded with 55,000 landmines, attack dogs, and something like 47,000 armed guards over its tiny 27 mile length. If they were split into 8-hour shifts and spaced evenly, how much length would each guard need to cover?
Why do you think they needed so many guards, dogs, and landmines? How effective do you think it would have been had it been
Re: (Score:2)
What the Berlin Wall was actually best at was to hasten the bankruptcy of the GDR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the Chinese were worried by the Mongolians, very few Mongolians flew in on 747s. Virtually all illegal immigrants in the US are people who flew in and overstayed.
It's also worth noting that the Mongolians conquered the Chinese anyway.
You are making stuff up (Score:2)
Re:THis time (Score:5, Insightful)
Castle walls were manned. These border walls are not. There's not enough money to put people around to man it all. So, get a bit ladder and climb over. Oh no, there's concertina wire on top! Just get a big blanket to put over the top. Oh no, it's got spikes! Just cut through the wall with then acetyline torch.
Funneling everyone to the Sonoran dessert because they'll die there and it'll be a deterrent (intentionally wanting the migrants to die, as admitted by some). But no, they show up anyway, because a chance of making it is better than saying home and having your family killed.
The solution, that no one likes, is to make it less likely for someone to want to leave their awful homes by making it not so awful. Make their economies better. Improve trade. etc. Before the big crackdown in the 70s and 80s people were regularly going back and forth across the border, seasonal workers actually were seasonal. The America First! types were hiring the illegal aliens (secret: they still do, and even Trump hired them indirectly). Yes, the very same farmers who complained about illegal immigrants were hiring them. Laredo and Jaurez were essentially one town. Then the crack down came, the moving them off to the desert, it got harder to go back and forth so many of them unsuprisingly decided to just stay once they got across the border. Today Mexico is not the big problem, it's the failing states further south; but now it's a refugee crisis and not a crisis of migrant workers or drug smugglers. But the solution has not been to see about how to improve conditions down south, but to repeat the same policies that have been failling for decades.
Another snag, is that politicians aren't really tracking what is working and what isn't. Migration levels have never been constant, and they don't correlate well with political changes. So if the numbers go up it is not always due to good administration policies, and if they go down not is not always due to bad administration policies. Instead numbers go up and down based upon conditions in the originating country. But naive politicians love to blame their predecessors and promise to do better, yet repeat the same policies that do. not. work. Because implementing policies that do. not. work. will get you votes.
Meanwhile suggesting a wall on the Canadian border is just stupid, and politicians of all three stripes have said so (liberal, conservative, and MAGA).
Re: (Score:2)
Or, another solution since our fertility rate isn't that great and we don't want to end up like Japan giving economic incentives to try to get young people to immigrate would be to open up immigration legally thus reducing the money spent on stupid ideas like the "wall", increasing the tax base, and move forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the big crackdown in the 70s and 80s people were regularly going back and forth across the border, seasonal workers actually were seasonal. The America First! types were hiring the illegal aliens (secret: they still do, and even Trump hired them indirectly). Yes, the very same farmers who complained about illegal immigrants were hiring them. Laredo and Jaurez were essentially one town. Then the crack down came, the moving them off to the desert, it got harder to go back and forth so many of them unsuprisingly decided to just stay once they got across the border.
It's probably not possible to turn back the clock, but it's important to remember that the US's big illegal migration problem came as a result of trying to fix their small illegal migration problem.
Re: (Score:2)
A wall is a thin barrier between the outside world and in. It's as easy to circumvent as climbing a ladder or using a blowtorch. Anyone placing their hopes in a wall is stupid. The problem with Trump is he bigged it up a wall this thing that by itself would halt the problem when anyone with a functioning brain could see it wouldn't.
If you genuinely want to stop or control immigration then you need deterrence, defence in depth and a compassionate, fair and swift immigration system. A wall might be part of th
Re: (Score:2)
Why have countless civilizations built walls throughout all of history?
Most of them were small enough to be actively guarded by people at all times. The Great Wall of China was never intended to stop people (who were good at climbing things like walls), but to stop those people's horses (which are not so good at climbing).
Re: (Score:2)
His real purpose of running is to angle for the next grift. He's already run a massive pump and dump on a pharmaceutical and using it as a springboard for the next thing. If he's championing crypto and cultivating crypto-bros it's because he knows there are a lot of easy marks to be had there. I won't be surprised if post 2024 he's running some con involving "liberty" / "freedom" themed crypto or NFTs.
Re: (Score:2)
I still approve of it. Wall on the south, wall on the north, put a lid on it and seal it well... the world would pay for it, too.
Re: THis time (Score:2)
The walls don't seem to prevent terrorist attacks.
They do prevent movement in that case, where the area to be controlled is small.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, analyze his stated policies and show a logical reason not to vote for him.
This policy - "Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels" - seems like a logical reason not to vote for him, if you remember how well fixing things in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out. It's one of 25 promises at www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/ [vivek2024.com]
Calling a presidential candidate you don't like a "dipshit" makes people dislike Democrats.
Would it be bad to call him a "RINO"? That seems like a popular insult among the circular firing squad.
Re:THis time (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, analyze his stated policies and show a logical reason not to vote for him.
This policy - "Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels" - seems like a logical reason not to vote for him, if you remember how well fixing things in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out.
That's a pretty weak example. The reason not to do this is that it is a violation of international law. But using fuel-air bombs or agent orange on drug fields isn't remotely the same as toppling a semi-popular government and then trying to build a replacement without the extremists, and using the failure of the latter as a reason to assume that the former can't work makes little sense.
No, the reason to outright reject him as a candidate is that his positions on everything are barely within the Overton window. He:
I mean, he's not the worst candidate the Republican Party has given us, but that's the lowest bar in the world.
Republican candidates that win always start out on the right in the primary debates and then run to center in the general election, but he's so far to the right that he can't plausibly run far enough towards the center to get elected, short of Democrats and moderates staying home en masse, and even if he somehow miraculously did get elected, he would be a one-term president with near certainty.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think any of the charges were filed by Republicans. Special prosecutor Jack Smith has apparently taken pains to remain publicly politically independent for a very long time. AG Garland is regarded by some as a moderate conservative and by others as a moderate liberal. He, too, seems to have tried to remain publicly politically independent. The criminal charges in New York and Atlanta were filed by Democrat district attorneys. The civil case over the Trump Organization was filed by a Democrat state A
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any of the charges were filed by Republicans.
Your thinking is in conflict with reality. And bringing up one case out ouf 70 as led by a democrat is not really helping your case.
Re: (Score:2)
But using fuel-air bombs or agent orange on drug fields isn't remotely the same as toppling a semi-popular government and then trying to build a replacement without the extremists
It seems like los yanquis dropping bombs on Mexico might well destabilize the Mexican government, which would not be great for the United States. Also Iraq and Afghanistan are over 6000 miles away. Mexico is zero miles away.
I'm not saying it's a good idea. Depending on how you do it, the risks could be enormous. It just isn't remotely the same level of bad idea as trying to cause regime change, which has pretty much backfired 100% of the time that the U.S. has tried it.
Destroying fields of drug crops did somewhat reduce the supply of coca, which suggests that it could potentially work for other crops. And that approach at least has some chance of not totally destabilizing governments, assuming those governments don't depend
It is far more likely Biden will run unopposed... (Score:2)
...with Dumpy being let out of his cell only to be indicted and trialed for ANOTHER thing, with Republicans penciling in his name on ballots anyway while Dion keeps yelling at them on FOX "But I am the nominee! Why won't you vote for meeee?!" - than Ramalamadingdong ever serving in any elected or appointed capacity above a municipal dog catcher.
And I don't believe he is qualified to be a dog catcher either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think he wouldn't be on the ballot?
There is nothing that says a candidate can't run from and win office from prison so that can't be why. You think he's going to quit? Die of a heart attack? What?
Re: (Score:2)
Die of a heart attack?
That's what I'd make it look like, but anything is fine by me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: THis time (Score:2)
Because his policies and ideas suck ass. It's hard enough that I find it more reasonable to ask any supporterv of his what they find logical and vivid about any of his pillar ideas.
Re: THis time (Score:2)
Yes, the famously strong candidate Hillary Clinton.
Re: THis time (Score:2)
Re: THis time (Score:2)
âoe Calling a presidential candidate you don't like a "dipshit" makes people dislike Democrats.â
If that makes them dislike democrats they must really really hate the GOP. Name calling is literally how the last GOP president deals with any challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't you see people in Alabama voting for him?
And if they don't so what? Winning Alabama is not a requirement for office.
What was your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rephrase. I can’t see people in bumfuck Pennsylvania voting for a guy named Vivek Ramaswamy. With his complexion he might as well be Bin Laden.
Re: (Score:3)
Same question. Why wouldn't they vote for him in Pennsylvania?
Have you ever met anyone from bumfuck, USA? In person? Had an actual conversation? Got to know them?
Because I'm certain an open minded smart guy like yourself wouldn't stereotype literally tens of millions of people into a neat little "they're all racists" box based solely on their zip code. Only an ignorant jackass would do that, right?
And for the record, yes, I challenge people the same way on conservative sites when they boldly and incorr
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't you see people in Alabama voting for him?
Have you ever been to Alabama?
Winning Alabama is not a requirement for office.
Not Alabama specifically, but there are a lot of rural states with older bigoted people who won't vote for someone named "Vivek".
There are also many educated fair-minded people in Alabama who won't vote for someone who is a bully and an idiot, so Vivek loses again.
What was your point?
That Vivek's political career will soon be over.
Re:THis time (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes his career will soon be over but not because of his skin color. Because he has stupid ideas.
Americans have put numerous bullies in office. Where'd you get the idea they won't vote for a loudmouthed bully?
And as I recall we put a black guy in office. Twice. Weirrrrrrd! Maybe all those old white rural racists didn't notice he was black?
These are the same racists who love Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Ben Carson, and numerous others who have been elected and appointed to positions all over the country. Too many to name so here's a list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm a libertarian registered independent but I find the whole "Republicans are all raycisssssts!" canard so boring. There are plenty of real things wrong with their party. You don't need to make things up to bash them with. The racism card lost its power 20+ years ago from over application.
Re:THis time (Score:5, Informative)
And as I recall we put a black guy in office. Twice. Weirrrrrrd! Maybe all those old white rural racists didn't notice he was black?
Look at the election map. Barrack Obama wasn't elected by rural racists.
These are the same racists who love Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Ben Carson
None of these people have ever been elected to any public office.
Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, both from SC, are better examples of Republicans transcending race.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points.
Re: (Score:3)
It took seconds to find that Romney got 20 more points of the white vote than Obama, and a single glance at any electoral map tells you the Southern Strategy is still in effect.
Guess what, run a candidate endorsed by David Duke and the Klan newspaper, people will figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
He uses his opponents' young children to make cheap political points. He's a piece of shit.
Vivek: Tick-Tock bad, young people shouldn't use.
Haley: I have kids and I agree: Yes, let's ban Tick-Tock!
Viv ek: Your 25-year old daugher is a big Tick-Docker, and you are OK with it for her though.
Haley: You are scum! Leave my kids out of it!
Is that pointing out hypocrisy, or "using" "children"?
Re:Not (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro:
Only candidate with a crypto plan
Con:
Has a bad crypto plan
Pro:
Unlikely to be as senile like the leading two candidates
Con:
Is probably clinically insane
Re: (Score:3)
He's vying for VP slot on the Trump ticket. The dude's sucking major orange micro-dick and refuses to say anything bad about Trump for fear of spoiling that chance. Now is Trump dumb enough to take the bait? Well, I don't think there's anything Trump's not dumb enough for. So a definite maybe on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily this disphit's chance of being president is zero.
This dipshit, as you say, is basically taking Trumps bluster and adding in a tiny touch of restraint. It's all the same talking points, all the same bullshit, but refined. Nobody thought Trump would be elected. He's doing what a lot of us predicted would happen. Taking Trump's strategy, bully, act like a prick, babble semi-coherently but a lot louder than anyone else, and cleaning it up just enough to come off not quite so unhinged.
Anybody who watched that last Republican debate should be hoping that we're
Re: (Score:2)
If that "Project 2025" malady came to pass, he'd still likely be springboarded into some position of power he's unqualified to serve.
No plan is a good plan (Score:2)
It's best left as a wild outsider. Speculators shafting other speculators is fine by me.
Oh no, no no no (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Ramaswamy Is the Only GOP Candidate With a Crypto Plan"
Well then he can fuck right off, because I've only ever seen crypto "plans" fail and go down in flames.
And frankly I wouldn't trust prick as far as I could throw the USS Missouri, so double-fuck him and his fascist horsecrap.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then he can fuck right off
This.
I'd be saying exactly the same thing if it was a politician on the other side of the aisle, too. Having a plan for shitcoins is just the latest in a long list of distractions politicians use as way of saying "look over there!" to dodge real issues. It just so happens that the Republicans reach into that particular bag of tricks more frequently, because they hate actually having to solve problems even more than the Democrats do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am so glad that homelessness, the environment, inflation, fentanyl, open borders, education, health care and crime have all been solved.
Oh wait.... never mind!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much that he didn't finish the wall. The one he picked was designed by a company that had no experience building secure border walls and touted its height and that it would be hot in the sun as deterrents. DHS rejected it but Trump overrode DHS and ordered it built. They got $2 billion to build less than 100 miles of walls over four locations. Within weeks of walls going up, people were simply cutting through it in minutes with angle grinders. It happened at least 3,271 times between 2019 and 20
Please explain why should anyone care (Score:2)
Headline: Ramaswamy Is the Only GOP Candidate With a Crypto Plan
Important missing context: Why is this any more relevant than, say, if he was the only GOP candidate who liked wearing green socks?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot will post anything that has 'crypto' in the title.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference. Green socks are much more important than crypto.
Relevance: Vote for somebody else (Score:2)
Important missing context: Why is this any more relevant than, say, if he was the only GOP candidate who liked wearing green socks?
I will fully admit to being a non-standard voter. I like to say that I disagree with the Republicans 50% of the time, the Democrats 50% of the time, and both of them 50% of the time. In the sense that I support policies and decisions that BOTH parties would oppose.
As such, when I'm voting, I'm generally voting for the "least bad" candidate.
Knowing this dude has a "crypto plan" that basically amounts to "keep enabling the fraud, crime, and everything else" associated with crypto, by banning law enforcement
Is the plan "ban cryptocurrencies"? (Score:2)
Because if so, I get a punch on my "agree with a Republican on an issue" card. If I get ten punches, The Log Cabin Republicans will send me a free hat. Probably something in rainbow with a very confused looking elephant on it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Truth bro. Those republicans are just crazy. There isn't a single thing we can agree on with that 25% of the adult population. Nothing. They are just like fucking aliens, man! It's true! I heard they eat babies and chop up cattle and conduct experiments on democrats in their secret labs!
Re: (Score:2)
The distinction you seem to be having trouble comprehending is that there is a difference between the Republican electorate and the Republican politicians. I personally know and do business with quite a few folks who vote Republican. They're generally decent enough people who want to earn a good living, not see their hard-earned tax money put to waste, not get raped in the pocketbook when they go to buy fuel or groceries, and desire to see American culture and values passed on to the next generation.
The p
Re: Is the plan "ban cryptocurrencies"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Republican Party base started to grow when there got to be a critical mass of people unashamed to be caught supermarket tabloids like National Enquirer and News of the World. Inevitably, the party adjusted to accommodate them.
Another thing that sets him apart (Score:2)
Unhosted (Score:3)
If you have cash in your pocket, it is unhosted.
If you have gold or silver in your safe at your house, it is unhosted.
Your car parked in your driveway is unhosted.
Movies on disc in your cabinet are unhosted.
A freezer full of meat is unhosted.
A garden growing vegetables is unhosted.
The default is unhosted. Reject the narrative. Hosted resources are not in your control.
The right to print money (Score:2)
What he proposes is the right to print money, isn't?
Jesus didn't have crypto.... (Score:2)
Grifter (Score:2)
Viveks crypto plans mainly consist of rugpulls and pump and dumps that he's planning on anyone stupid enough to fall for his schtick.
This latest series of POTUS... (Score:2)
He's a conman (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He did say sometging funny though. He was bragging about being thr first millennial presidential candidate as though that's some kind of accomplishment instead of the predictable consequence of time proceeding in a linear fashion.
I think his point is that time isn't proceeding fast enough and he's the only candidate who isn't too old. Just trying to get the young people vote.
USA Presidential politics are just totally fucked (again) until next cycle. When Trump is no longer a viable candidate, more sane comparisons/contests can be conducted. Both parties will then offer better candidates for voters to consider.
(Ones who don't have a foot in the grave, and who are not competing against Trump. Right now everything is still all about Tr
I wonder (Score:2)
I smell a rat.
There's only one GOP candidate (Score:2)
Re:That's not a plan (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to keep the fraud, money laundering and terror finance going rather than putting a stop to it, it's a pretty good plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the reason states haven't quashed it is that it is an easy way too trace criminal money.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m more scared of domestic terrorists. https://www.chron.com/politics... [chron.com]